Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-n9lxd Total loading time: 0.445 Render date: 2022-09-28T17:42:50.171Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Does the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – self report yield invariant measurements across different nations? Data from the International Child Mental Health Study Group

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2014

D. Stevanovic*
Affiliation:
Clinic for Neurology and Psychiatry for Children and Youth, Belgrade, Serbia
R. Urbán
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary
O. Atilola
Affiliation:
Department of Behavioral Medicine, Lagos State University College of Medicine Ikeja, Lagos, Nigeria
P. Vostanis
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, Leicester University, Leicester, UK
Y. P. Singh Balhara
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, India
M. Avicenna
Affiliation:
Faculty of Psychology, State Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah, Jakarta, Indonesia
H. Kandemir
Affiliation:
Department of Child and Adolescents psychiatry, Harran University, Sanliurfa, Turkey
R. Knez
Affiliation:
Department of psychiatry, University Hospital Centre Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
T. Franic
Affiliation:
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia
P. Petrov
Affiliation:
Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, University Hospital St. Marina, Varna, Bulgaria
*
*Address for correspondence: Dr Dejan Stevanovic, Clinic for Neurology and Psychiatry for Children and Youth, Dr Subotića Starijeg 6a, 11000 Beograd Belgrade, Serbia. (Email: dejanstevanovic@eunet.rs)

Abstract

Aims.

This study evaluated the measurement invariance of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) self-report among adolescents from seven different nations.

Methods.

Data for 2367 adolescents, aged 13–18 years, from India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Serbia, Turkey, Bulgaria and Croatia were available for a series of factor analyses.

Results.

The five-factor model including original SDQ scales emotional symptoms, conduct problems, hyperactivity–inattention problems, peer problems and prosocial behaviour generated inadequate fit degree in all countries. A bifactor model with three factors (i.e., externalising, internalising and prosocial) and one general problem factor yielded adequate degree of fit in India, Nigeria, Turkey and Croatia. The prosocial behaviour, emotional symptoms and conduct problems factor were found to be common for all nations. However, originally proposed items loaded saliently on other factors besides the proposed ones or only some of them corresponded to proposed factors in all seven countries.

Conclusions.

Due to the lack of a common acceptable model across all countries, namely the same numbers of factors (i.e., dimensional invariance), it was not possible to perform the metric and scalar invariance test, what indicates that the SDQ self-report models tested lack appropriate measurement invariance across adolescents from these seven nations and it needs to be revised for cross-country comparisons.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achenbach, TM (1991 a). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 Profile. University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry: Burlington, VT.Google Scholar
Achenbach, TM (1991 b). Manual for the Teacher's Report Form and 1991 Profile. University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry: Burlington, VT.Google Scholar
Achenbach, TM (1991 c). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and 1991 Profile. University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry: Burlington, VT.Google Scholar
Achenbach, TM, Rescorla, LA (2007). Multicultural Supplement to the Manual for the ASEBA School-Age Forms & Profiles. University of Vermont Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families: Burlington, VT.Google Scholar
Achenbach, TM, Becker, A, Döpfner, M, Heiervang, E, Roessner, V, Steinhausen, HC, Rothenberger, A (2008). Multicultural assessment of child and adolescent psychopathology with ASEBA and SDQ instruments: research findings, applications, and future directions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49, 251275.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Achenbach, TM, Rescorla, LA, Ivanova, MY (2012). International epidemiology of child and adolescent psychopathology I: diagnoses, dimensions, and conceptual issues. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 51, 12611272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Asparouhov, T, Muthén, B (2006). Robust Chi square difference testing with mean and variance adjusted test statistics. Mplus Web Notes, 10. Retrieved 20 March 2014 (http://www.statmodel.com/download/webnotes/webnote10.pdf).Google Scholar
Atilola, O, Balhara, YPS, Stevanovic, D, Avicenna, M, Kandemir, H (2013). Self-reported mental health problems among adolescents in developing countries: results from an international pilot sample. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 34, 129137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, JW, Poortinga, YH, Segall, MH, Dasen, PR (2002). Methodological concerns. In Cross-cultural Psychology: Research and Applications (ed. Berry, JW, Poortinga, YH, Segall, MH and Dasen, PR), pp. 286316, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
Brown, TA (2006). Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Applied Research. Guilford Press: New York.Google Scholar
Browne, MV, Cudek, R (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Testing Structural Equation Models (ed. Bollen, KA and Long, SJ), pp. 136162. Sage: Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
Byrne, BM, Watkins, D (2003). The issue of measurement invariance revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 34, 155175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camras, LA, Fatani, SS (2006). The development of emotional expressivity and the influence of culture. International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development Newsletter 49, 1215.Google Scholar
Dickey, WC, Blumberg, SJ (2004). Revisiting the factor structure of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire: United States, 2001. Journal of the American Academic Child Adolescent Psychiatry 43, 11591167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Essau, CA, Olaya, B, Anastassiou-Hadjicharalambous, X, Pauli, G, Gilvarry, C, Bray, D, O'callaghan, J, Ollendick, TH (2012). Psychometric properties of the strength and difficulties questionnaire from five European countries. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research 21, 232245.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finney, SJ, Di Stefano, C (2006). Nonnormal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course (ed. Hancock, GR and Mueller, RD), pp. 269314. Information Age: Greenwich, CT.Google Scholar
Giannakopoulos, G, Tzavara, C, Dimitrakaki, C, Kolaitis, G, Rotsika, V, Tountas, Y (2009). The factor structure of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) in Greek adolescents. Annals of General Psychiatry 8, 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, R (1997). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: a research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, R (2001). Psychometric properties of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 40, 13371345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, R, Ford, T, Corbin, T, Meltzer, H (2004). Using the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) multi-informant algorithm to screen looked after children for psychiatric disorders. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 13, 2531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, A, Lamping, DL, Ploubidis, GB (2010). When to use broader internalising and externalising subscales instead of the hypothesised five subscales on the strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ): data from British parents, teachers and children. Journal of abnormal child psychology 38, 11791191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goodman, A, Heiervang, E, Fleitlich-Bilyk, B, Alyahri, A, Patel, V, Mullick, MS, Slobodskaya, H, Dos Santos, DN, Goodman, R (2012). Cross-national differences in questionnaires do not necessarily reflect comparable differences in disorder prevalence. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 47, 13211331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greally, P, Kelleher, I, Murphy, J, Cannon, M (2010). Assessment of the mental health of Irish adolescents in the community. Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Student Medical Journal 3, 3335.Google Scholar
Gregorich, SE (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care 44, S7894.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hackett, R, Hackett, L (1999). Child psychiatry across cultures. International Review of Psychiatry 11, 225235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
He, J, van de Vijver, F (2012). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural research. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heiervang, E, Goodman, A, Goodman, R (2008). The Nordic advantage in child mental health: separating health differences from reporting style in a cross-cultural comparison of psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49, 678685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heine, SJ, Lehman, DR, Peng, K, Greenholtz, J (2002). What's wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales?: The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82, 903.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horn, JL, McArdle, JJ (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research 18, 117144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ivanova, MY, Achenbach, TM, Rescorla, LA, Dumenci, L, Almqvist, F, Bilenberg, N, Bird, H, Broberg, AG, Dobrean, A, Döpfner, M, Erol, N, Forns, M, Hannesdottir, H, Kanbayashi, Y, Lambert, MC, Leung, P, Minaei, A, Mulatu, MS, Novik, T, Oh, KJ, Roussos, A, Sawyer, M, Simsek, Z, Steinhausen, HC, Weintraub, S, Winkler Metzke, C, Wolanczyk, T, Zilber, N, Zukauskiene, R, Verhulst, FC (2007). The generalizability of the youth self-report syndrome structure in 23 societies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 75, 729738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kline, RB (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd edn. Guilford Press: New York.Google Scholar
Kóbor, A, Takács, Á, Urbán, R (2013). The bifactor model of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 29, 299307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koskelainen, M, Sourander, A, Vauras, M (2001). Self-reported strengths and difficulties in a community sample of Finnish adolescents. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 10, 180185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, KY, Luk, ES, Leung, PW, Wong, AS, Law, L, Ho, K (2010). Validation of the Chinese version of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire in Hong Kong. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 45, 11791186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambert, MC, Essau, CA, Schmitt, N, Samms-Vaughan, ME (2007). Dimensionality and psychometric invariance of the youth self-report form of the child behavior checklist in cross-national settings. Assessment 14, 231245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mabe, PA, Josephson, AM (2004). Child and adolescent psychopathology: spiritual and religious perspectives. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America 13, 111125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacCallum, RC (1986). Specification searches in covariance structure modelling. Psychological Bulletin 100, 107120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellor, D, Stokes, M (2007). The factor structure of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 23, 105112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milfont, TL, Fisher, R (2010). Testing measurement invariance across groups: applications for cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research 3, 111121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muthén, LK, Muthén, BO (1998–2012). Mplus User's Guide, 7th edn. Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Nazroo, JY (1998). Genetic, cultural or socio-economic vulnerability? Explaining ethnic inequalities in health. Sociology of Health and Illness 20, 710730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikapota, A, Rutter, M (2008). Sociocultural/ethnic groups and psychopathology. In Rutter's Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 5th edn (ed. Rutter, MD, Bishop, VM, Pine, DS, Scott, S, Stevenson, J, Taylor, E, Thapar, A), pp. 199211. Blackwell Publishing Limited: London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percy, A, McCrystal, P, Higgins, K (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis of the adolescent self-report strengths and difficulties questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 24, 4348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poortinga, YH (1989). Equivalence of cross-cultural data: an overview of basic issues. International Journal of Psychology 24, 737756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purgato, M, Barbui, C (2012). Dichotomizing rating scale scores in psychiatry: a bad idea. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Science, 22, 1719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ravens-Sieberer, U, Wille, N, Erhart, M, Bettge, S, Wittchen, HU, Rothenberger, A, Herpertz-Dahlmann, B, Resch, F, Hölling, H, Bullinger, M, Barkmann, C, Schulte-Markwort, M, Döpfner, M (2008 a). Prevalence of mental health problems among children and adolescents in Germany: results of the BELLA study within the national health interview and examination survey. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 17, 2233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ravens-Sieberer, U, Erhart, M, Gosch, A, Wille, N (2008 b). Mental health of children and adolescents in 12 European countries – results from the European KIDSCREEN study. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy 15, 154163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, L, Ivanova, MY, Achenbach, TM, Begovac, I, Chahed, M, Drugli, MB, Emerich, DR, Fung, DS, Haider, M, Hansson, K, Hewitt, N, Jaimes, S, Larsson, B, Maggiolini, A, Marković, J, Mitrović, D, Moreira, P, Oliveira, JT, Olsson, M, Ooi, YP, Petot, D, Pisa, C, Pomalima, R, da Rocha, MM, Rudan, V, Sekulić, S, Shahini, M, de Mattos Silvares, EF, Szirovicza, L, Valverde, J, Vera, LA, Villa, MC, Viola, L, Woo, BS, Zhang, EY (2012). International epidemiology of child and adolescent psychopathology. II. Integration and applications of dimensional findings from 44 societies. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 51, 12731283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richter, J, Sagatun, Å, Heyerdahl, S, Oppedal, B, Røysamb, E (2011). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) – self-report. An analysis of its structure in a multiethnic urban adolescent sample. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 52, 10021011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riso, DD, Salcuni, S, Chessa, D, Raudino, A, Lis, A, Altoè, G (2010). The strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ). Early evidence of its reliability and validity in a community sample of Italian children. Personality and Individual Differences 49, 570575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronning, JA, Handegaard, BH, Sourander, A, Morch, WT (2004). The strengths and difficulties self-report questionnaire as a screening instrument in Norwegian community samples. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 13, 7382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ruchkin, V, Koposov, R, Schwab-Stone, M (2007). The strength and difficulties questionnaire: scale validation with Russian adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology 63, 861869.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thabet, AA, Stretch, D, Vostanis, P (2000). Child mental health problems in Arab children: application of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. International Journal of Social Psychiatry 46, 266280.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van de Looij-Jansen, PM, Goedhart, AW, de Wilde, EJ, Treffers, PD (2011). Confirmatory factor analysis and factorial invariance analysis of the adolescent self-report strengths and difficulties questionnaire: how important are method effects and minor factors? British Journal of Clinical Psychology 50, 127144.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Roy, B, Veenstra, M, Clench-Aas, J (2008). Construct validity of the five-factor strengths and difficulties questionnaire (SDQ) in pre, early, and late adolescence. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 49, 13041312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verhulp, EE, Stevens, GWJM, Van de Schoot, R, Vollebergh, WAM (2014). Using the youth self-report internalizing syndrome scales among immigrant adolescents: testing measurement invariance across groups and over time. European Journal of Developmental Psychology 11, 102110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yates, A (1987). Multivariate Exploratory Data Analysis: A Perspective on Exploratory Factor Analysis. State University of New York Press: Albany.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Stevanovic Supplementary Material

Appendix 1

Download Stevanovic Supplementary Material(File)
File 129 KB
28
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Does the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – self report yield invariant measurements across different nations? Data from the International Child Mental Health Study Group
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Does the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – self report yield invariant measurements across different nations? Data from the International Child Mental Health Study Group
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Does the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire – self report yield invariant measurements across different nations? Data from the International Child Mental Health Study Group
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *